DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Common White Sucker and Longnose Sucker Population Changes: Long-Term Evaluation, 1980-2013 by Annalise M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Common White Sucker and Longnose Sucker Population Changes: Long-Term Evaluation, 1980-2013 by Annalise M Comparison of Common White Sucker and Longnose Sucker Population Changes: Long-term evaluation, 1980-2013 By Annalise M. Povolo, Randall M. Claramunt and David F. Clapp Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Charlevoix Great Lakes Station, 96 Grant Street, Charlevoix, MI 49720 Background: Recently, there has been concern that sucker Catostomidae abundances have severely decreased throughout the Great Lakes. Potential explanations for the decline relate to interactions with invasive species, and include low zooplankton availability after the introduction of dreissenids, as well as top-down effects in which young-of-the-year (YOY) suckers are preyed on more heavily because of a decline in alewife populations. Long-term data collected during bottom gill net surveys from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Survey Vessel Steelhead have made it possible to analyze the long- and short-term trends in common white sucker (CWS) Catostomus commersonii and longnose sucker (LNS) Catostomus catostomus abundances and sizes in Lake Michigan. Major Findings: 1. Long-term abundances: Measures of catch-per-effort (CPE) show there is a fluctuating pattern in CWS and LNS abundances over time. As evident by the linear trend lines, there was a long-term trend from 1980 until 2002 in which the CPE of LNS was on average 1.3 fish/1000 ft lower than the CWS. Near the end of this series of higher CWS abundance, the CPE of LNS peaked at 5.2 fish/1000 ft while CWS remained lower at 1.6 fish/1000 ft from 1995 to 1999. This was followed by another fluctuation from 1999 to 2002 with CWS CPE reaching 4.6 fish/1000 ft and LNS CPE remaining lower around 2.7 fish/1000 ft. Since the CWS peak around 2002, the abundance of LNS has been close to or higher than CWS abundance, and appears to be continuing in this trend. It is evident from the long-term abundances that fluctuating patterns exist in which one sucker species is more abundant than the other, however, there is no significant overall correlation in the CPE between the two species. This lack of correlation indicates that longnose sucker and common white sucker populations are independent of each other. 6 CWS 5 Dreissenids LNS introduced 4 3 2 CPE CPE (#/1000 ft) 1 0 Sample Year 2. Effect of invasive species on abundance: The introduction and subsequent spread of dreissenids occurred in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Bottom gill nets were not used during the years of 1991 through 1994, although there was a period of low sucker abundance immediately following the introduction of dreissenids, followed by a period of high abundances for both species after the years of missing data. Combining CPE for both species before the introduction of dreissenids and after showed no distinct change in average CPE of suckers, with the pre-dreissenid combined CPE at 3.2 fish/1000 ft and the post-dreissenid combined CPE at 3.1 fish/1000 ft. Even though the total abundance has not changed during the two time series, it appears as though environmental conditions have favored LNS in the recent time series. Additional monitoring will help determine whether or not this is indicative of a long-term trend. 1 3. CWS and LNS mean lengths: The mean lengths of common white suckers and longnose suckers have fluctuated at similar intervals from 1997 to 2002. After 2002, the mean length of LNS continued in this pattern of fluctuation, but as evident from the linear trend lines, also showed an increasing trend in mean lengths. The mean length of CWS throughout this time period has also increased, but at a slower rate and with greater variation. Although this fluctuating pattern exists, there is still no significant correlation between the mean lengths of common white suckers and longnose suckers. CWS 500 LNS 480 460 440 420 MeanLength (mm) 400 380 Sample Year *No complete biodata was available before 1997. Results: The common white sucker mean CPE ranged from 0 to 5.3 fish/1000 ft and averaged 1.9 ± 1.7 fish/1000 ft across the 1980-2013 time series. In 2013, CPE decreased from 2012 and was 0.4 times lower than the average for the long-term data series. The longnose sucker mean CPE ranged from 0 to 5.2 fish/1000 ft and averaged 1.3 ± 1.1 fish/1000 ft across the 1980-2013 time series. In 2013, CPE increased from 2012 and was almost equal to the average for the long-term data series. The common white sucker mean length ranged from 400 to 479 mm and averaged 438 mm ± 28 mm across the 1997-2013 time series. In 2013 mean length increased from 2012 and was slightly higher than the average from the long-term data series. The longnose sucker mean length ranged from 418 to 483 and averaged 450 mm ± 24 mm across the 1997-2013 time series. In 2013 the mean length increased from 2012 and was slightly higher than the average from the long-term data series. Conclusions: The relative abundance and mean length of the common white sucker are independent from those of the longnose sucker. Relative abundance of suckers does not seem to be substantially impacted by invasive species (i.e. dreissenids) or at least does not seem to have a short-term impact. Because of repeated short- and long-term fluctuations, there should not be concern about sucker populations in Lake Michigan. However, all information has come from surveys that have not specifically targeted suckers. More intensive sucker surveys would improve our understanding of sucker populations in the Great Lakes. 2 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River. Georgia, and South Carolina
    Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety 135:1145-1155, 2006 [Article] © Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2006 DO: 10.1577/705-230.1 Seasonal and Diel Movements and Habitat Use of Robust Redhorses in the Lower Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina TIMOTHY B. GRABOWSKI*I Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina,29634-0326, USA J. JEFFERY ISELY U.S. Geological Survey, South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 29634-0372, USA Abstract.-The robust redhorse Moxostonta robustum is a large riverine catostomid whose distribution is restricted to three Atlantic Slope drainages. Once presumed extinct, this species was rediscovered in 1991. Despite being the focus of conservation and recovery efforts, the robust redhorse's movements and habitat use are virtually unknown. We surgically implanted pulse-coded radio transmitters into 17 wild adults (460-690 mm total length) below the downstream-most dam on the Savannah River and into 2 fish above this dam. Individuals were located every 2 weeks from June 2002 to September 2003 and monthly thereafter to May 2005. Additionally, we located 5-10 individuals every 2 h over a 48-h period during each season. Study fish moved at least 24.7 ± 8.4 river kilometers (rkm; mean ± SE) per season. This movement was generally downstream except during spring. Some individuals moved downstream by as much as 195 rkm from their release sites. Seasonal migrations were correlated to seasonal changes in water temperature. Robust redhorses initiated spring upstream migrations when water temperature reached approximately 12'C. Our diel tracking suggests that robust redhorses occupy small reaches of river (- 1.0 rkm) and are mainly active diumally.
    [Show full text]
  • Wollaston Road
    WOLLASTON LAKE ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Biophysical Environment 4.0 Biophysical Environment 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a description of the biophysical characteristics of the study region. Topics include climate, geology, terrestrial ecology, groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology. These topics are discussed at a regional scale, with some topics being more focused on the road corridor area (i.e., the two route options). Information included in this section was obtained in full or part from direct field observations as well as from reports, files, publications, and/or personal communications from the following sources: Saskatchewan Research Council Canadian Wildlife Service Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board Reports Saskatchewan Museum of Natural History W.P. Fraser Herbarium Saskatchewan Environment Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre Environment Canada Private Sector (Consultants) Miscellaneous publications 4.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY Both proposed routes straddle two different ecozones. The southern portion is located in the Wollaston Lake Plain landscape area within the Churchill River Upland ecoregion of the Boreal Shield ecozone. The northern portion is located in the Nueltin Lake Plain landscape area within the Selwyn Lake Upland ecoregion of the Taiga Shield ecozone (Figure 4.1). (SKCDC, 2002a; Acton et al., 1998; Canadian Biodiversity, 2004; MDH, 2004). Wollaston Lake lies on the Precambrian Shield in northern Saskatchewan and drains through two outlets. The primary Wollaston Lake discharge is within the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin, which drains through the Cochrane River, Reindeer Lake and into the Churchill River system which ultimately drains into Hudson Bay. The other drainage discharge is via the Fond du Lac River to Lake Athabasca, and thence to the Arctic Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Fish Consumption Advice by a Participatory Approach for The
    Associations Between Omega-3 fatty Acids, Selenium Content, and Mercury Levels in Wild-harvested Fish from the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories, Canada Ellen S. Reyes1, Juan J. Aristizabal Henao2, Katherine M. Kornobis3, Rhona M. Hanning1, Shannon E. Majowicz1, Karsten Liber4, Ken D. Stark2, George Low5, Heidi K. Swanson3, Brian D. Laird1 1School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 2Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 3Department of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 4Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada; 5Aboriginal Aquatic Resources and Ocean Management, Hay River, NWT, Canada INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fish provide a rich variety of important nutrients [e.g. omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FAs) and Table 1. Total Mercury and Selenium Concentrations by Fish Species Table 2. Fatty Acid Composition by Fish Species selenium (Se)]. The intake of n-3 FAs from fish consumption promotes healthy growth Mercury Selenium Total Omega-3 Fatty Acids EPA+DHA Omega-6 to Omega-3 Ratios and development in infants and children (SanGiovanni & Chew, 2005), supports optimal Fish Range Range Fish Range Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD n Mean ± S.D. (ppm) n Mean ± S.D. (ppm) n Range Mean ± SD cognitive health in older adults (Dangour & Uauy, 2008), and reduces the risk of Species (ppm) (ppm) Species (mg/100g) (mg/100g) (mg/100g) (mg/100g) cardiovascular disease (Calder, 2004). The intake of the essential
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Longnose Sucker (Catostomus Catostomus) Pennsylvania
    Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) Pennsylvania Endangered State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled) Global Rank: G5 (secure) What it looks like: The longnose sucker has a cylindrical body with a distinctive horizontal mouth and a long, rounded snout. Its color varies from olive to gray above and white or cream below; breeding males are darker, and females may be green to gold above. Both sexes have red lateral stripes. Where it lives: Longnose suckers prefer cold, clear waters, living on the bottom of streams and lakes, and down to depths of 180 meters in the Great Lakes. They feed on aquatic insects, mainly Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998 benthic species; a study of longnose suckers taken from the Missouri River in North Dakota found that the largest portion of their stomach contents was made up of midge larvae. Why it is rare: The longnose is the most widespread sucker species in North America, ranging from coast to coast and north into Canada. Pennsylvania is at the southern edge of the species’ range, and the populations documented here, mainly in the Youghiogheny River system, may represent relicts from when glacial action altered the river northward course to connect it with the Ohio River drainage. This population has suffered from the effects of severe acidification Conservation considerations: caused by mine drainage. The longnose sucker’s requirement for cold, North American State/Province Conservation Status c lear water makes it particularly sensitive to Map by NatureServe (August 2007) human alteration of streamflow and turbidity. It may have mixed reactions to dam construction; in a study of Missouri River fish State/Province species, the turbid conditions upstream of a Status Ranks d am made longnose suckers less abundant, but SX – presumed extirpated the clear conditions downstream allowed them SH – possibly extirpated S1 – critically imperiled t o become one of the dominant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Peninsula Fish Species List
    Upper Peninsula Fish Species List Rivers (fish caught in MDNR inland surveys 1998-99) blacknose dace *longnose dace bluntnose minnow longnose sucker brassy minnow mottled sculpin *brook trout northern pike brook trout (Assinia) northern redbellied dace brook trout (Iron River) *pumpkinseed *brown bullhead *rainbow trout brown trout *rock bass burbot *spottailed shiner central mudminnow *walleye chinook salmon (Michigan) *white sucker coho salmon (Michigan) *yellow perch creek chub johnny darter log perch *also found in lakes 27 species if different (strains) of fish are included. 25 species if the (strains) are not included. 12 species (including strains) are found in inland RIVERS only. Inland Lakes (fish caught in MDNR inland surveys 1998-99) black crappie northern pike bluegill *pumpkinseed bowfin *rainbow trout *brook trout *rock bass *brown bullhead smallmouth bass common carp splake common shiner *spottailed shiner gizzard shad *walleye golden shiner walleye (Gogebic) green sunfish *white sucker lake trout *yellow perch largemouth bass *longnose sucker muskellunge *also found in rivers 25 total inland lake species including 10 also found in rivers and one (strain) of walleye. 15 species were found only in inland lakes; including the (strain). 37 species or strains of fish were found in ~80 surveys conducted on inland lakes, streams and rivers by the MDNR in 1998-99. Fish Common to Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior (Information from the Wisconsin Sea Grant Program) alewife pink salmon bloater rainbow smelt *brook trout rainbow trout *brown trout round goby *burbot round whitefish *common carp ruffe chinook salmon sculpin coho salmon sea lamprey emerald shiner *smallmouth bass freshwater drum stickleback lake herring *walleye lake sturgeon white bass *lake trout white perch lake whitefish *white sucker *longnose sucker *yellow perch *muskellunge *northern pike *pumpkinseed *also found in inland waters 33 Great Lakes fish species These species lists may not be complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Species of Saskatchewan
    Introduction From the shallow, nutrient -rich potholes of the prairies to the clear, cool rock -lined waters of our province’s north, Saskatchewan can boast over 50,000 fish-bearing bodies of water. Indeed, water accounts for about one-eighth, or 80,000 square kilometers, of this province’s total surface area. As numerous and varied as these waterbodies are, so too are the types of fish that inhabit them. In total, Saskatchewan is home to 67 different fish species from 16 separate taxonomic families. Of these 67, 58 are native to Saskatchewan while the remaining nine represent species that have either been introduced to our waters or have naturally extended their range into the province. Approximately one-third of the fish species found within Saskatchewan can be classed as sportfish. These are the fish commonly sought out by anglers and are the best known. The remaining two-thirds can be grouped as minnow or rough-fish species. The focus of this booklet is primarily on the sportfish of Saskatchewan, but it also includes information about several rough-fish species as well. Descriptions provide information regarding the appearance of particular fish as well as habitat preferences and spawning and feeding behaviours. The individual species range maps are subject to change due to natural range extensions and recessions or because of changes in fisheries management. "...I shall stay him no longer than to wish him a rainy evening to read this following Discourse; and that, if he be an honest Angler, the east wind may never blow when he goes a -fishing." The Compleat Angler Izaak Walton, 1593-1683 This booklet was originally published by the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority with funds generated from the sale of angling licences and made available through the FISH AND WILDLIFE DEVELOPMENT FUND.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Selectively Controlling Non-Indigenous Fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    Options for Selectively Controlling Non-Indigenous Fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin Draft Report June 1995 Leo D. Lentsch Native Fish and Herptile Coordinator Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Robert Muth Larval Fish Lab Colorado State University Paul D. Thompson Native Fish Biologist Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Dr. Todd A. Crowl Utah State University and Brian G. Hoskins Native Fish Technician Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Colorado River Fishery Project Salt Lake City, Utah TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT .......................... INTRODUCTION ...................... Non-Indigenous Problems ..... Objectives ................... Control Options ............. Mechanical Control ..... Chemical Control ....... Biological Control ..... Physicochemical Control METHODS .......................................................... Literature Review .......................................... Species Accounts ........................................... RESULTS .......................................................... Species Accounts ........................................... Clupeidae-Herrings ................................... Threadfin Shad .................................. Cyprinidae-Carps and Minnows ........................ Red Shiner ...................................... Common Carp ..................................... Utah Chub ........................................ Leathers ide Chub ................................ Brassy Minnow ................................... Plains Minnow
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Selection of Robust Redhorse Moxostoma Robustum
    HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY (Under the Direction of Cecil A. Jennings) ABSTRACT Robust Redhorse, described originally in 1870, went unnoticed until 1991 when they were rediscovered in the lower Oconee River, Georgia. This research evaluated one hypothesis (habitat use) for explaining the absence of juveniles (30 mm – 410 mm TL) from samples of wild-caught robust redhorse. Two mesocosms were used to determine if juvenile robust redhorse use available habitats proportionately. Pond-reared juveniles were exposed to four, flow-based habitats (eddies = - 0.12 to -0.01 m/s, slow flow = 0.00 to 0.15 m/s, moderate flow = 0.16 to 0.32 m/s, and backwaters). Location data were recorded for each fish, and overall habitat use was evaluated with a Log-Linear Model. In winter, the fish preferred eddies and backwaters. In early spring the fish preferred eddies. Catch of wild juveniles may be improved by sampling eddies and their associated transitional areas. INDEX WORDS: backwaters, catostomid, eddies, habitat selection, juvenile fish, mesocosm, Moxostoma robustum, Oconee River, robust redhorse HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY BSFR, University of Georgia, 1998 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2006 © 2006 Diarra Lemuel Mosley All Rights Reserved HABITAT SELECTION OF ROBUST REDHORSE MOXOSTOMA ROBUSTUM : IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS by DIARRA LEMUEL MOSLEY Major Professor: Cecil A.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats, Conservation Strategies, and Prognosis for Suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: Insights from Regional Case Studies of a Diverse Family of Non-Game fishes
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Biological Conservation 121 (2005) 317–331 www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Review Threats, conservation strategies, and prognosis for suckers (Catostomidae) in North America: insights from regional case studies of a diverse family of non-game fishes Steven J. Cooke a,b,*,1, Christopher M. Bunt c, Steven J. Hamilton d, Cecil A. Jennings e, Michael P. Pearson f, Michael S. Cooperman g, Douglas F. Markle g a Department of Forest Sciences, Centre for Applied Conservation Research, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 b Centre for Aquatic Ecology, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820, USA c Biotactic Inc., 691 Hidden Valley Rd., Kitchener, Ont., Canada N2C 2S4 d Yankton Field Research Station, Columbia Environmental Research Center, United States Geological Survey, Yankton, SD 57078, USA e United States Geological Survey, Georgia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA f Fisheries Centre and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 g Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA Received 10 December 2003; received in revised form 6 May 2004; accepted 18 May 2004 Abstract Catostomid fishes are a diverse family of 76+ freshwater species that are distributed across North America in many different habitats. This group of fish is facing a variety of impacts and conservation issues that are somewhat unique relative to more economically valuable and heavily managed fish species. Here, we present a brief series of case studies to highlight the threats such as migration barriers, flow regulation, environmental contamination, habitat degradation, exploitation and impacts from introduced (non-native) species that are facing catostomids in different regions.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River Between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana
    An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 771-09, 771-10, 759-11, 771-11 and Fisheries Bureau Federal Aid Job Progress Report Federal Aid Project Number F-113-R9, R10, R11, R12 Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Submitted to PPL-Montana 336 Rainbow Dam Great Falls, Mt. 59404 Prepared by Grant Grisak, Brad Tribby and Adam Strainer Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 4600 Giant Springs Road Great Falls, Mt. 49505 January 2012 1 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 5 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Creel survey………………………………………………………………… 10 Angling……………………………………………………………………... 10 Fish Abundance………………………………………………………………………. 11 Tagging……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Radio Telemetry……………………………………………………………………… 17 Early Life History…………………………………………………………………….. 28 Diet…………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 34 References……………………………………………………………………………. 37 2 List of Tables No. Page 1. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 9, 1991-2009………………... 8 2. Economic statistics for the Missouri River section 9, 1995-2009……………... 9 3. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 8, combined angler days with 9 section 9, and economic statistics for section 8 and section 9, 1991- 2009……………………………………………………………………………. 4. Landmarks and associated river miles in the Missouri River between Holter 18 Dam and Black Eagle Dam……………………………………………………. 5. Meristics of radio tagged walleye in Missouri River, total miles traveled and 26 total days radio transmitter was active, 2008-2011……………………………. 6. Locations in the Missouri River and proportional use by radio tagged walleye 27 2008-10. Missouri River, Montana……………………………………………. 7. Young of the year walleye seined at sites in the Missouri River between 30 Cascade and Great Falls……………………………………………………….. 8. Number of fish species sampled by year and total number of sites where 31 found.
    [Show full text]
  • Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys Osculus, in Canada, Prepared Under Contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada ENDANGERED 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 51 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 27 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Peden, A. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Peden, A.E. 1980. COSEWIC status report on the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1-13 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Andrea Smith (Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd.) for writing the status report on the Speckled Dace, Rhinichthys osculus, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada.
    [Show full text]